NZ Politics

891 readers

2 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other LemmyNZ communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Dave@lemmy.nz

RaoulDuke@lemmy.nz

Single transferable vote in general election (lemmy.nz)

submitted 3 weeks ago by ooo_shiny@lemmy.nz to c/politics@lemmy.nz

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is probably not the kind of reform our Prime Minister has in mind, but I’d like to tinker slightly with our system and allow a ranked choice of electorate candidates (keeping the party vote system as is). That way, voting for minor parties will not be such a risk of wasting your vote in electorate seats.

For me, this is an issue that seems to fly under the radar but is vitally important. How many people have you heard complain about the duopoly of the two major parties? This would go some way towards making those parties campaign on their merits rather than on tradition, and I hope it forms part of any coalition agreements we see emerging from this election. (Will it? Probably not, since it’s not a big deal for most people right now.)

It works for council elections, it can work for general elections too.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Look at Paul Goldsmith, he has been lumped with Chris Penk's portfolios, bringing him up to 11.

MP's can't possibly handle 5 portfolios effectively, how can we expect good governance, if we knowingly overload the decision makers ensuring the quickest easiest decisions get made.

Ideally I'd like to see max 3 portfolios per MP.

As for gerrymandering, math will sorry you out. Just rule that length of the district boundary, must be the shortest possible length. At that point gerrymandering becomes impossible.

[–] ooo_shiny@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree that Goldsmith now has too many portfolios and you’re right about how this imperils good governance. It seems to me though that National already has options within its existing caucus and doesn’t need more MPs if the goal is simply to distribute the workload. This is more of a choice from the prime minister about how he delegates work and voters can decide what they think about it, I guess.

Labour was similar, as I recall — there were a few ‘super ministers’ in charge of a lot.

I take your point regarding gerrymandering. It’s not quite the right word. Replace it with a word that means ‘made to vote in elections where my vote will not materially affect the outcome whereas under the current system it can’, if you like.

[–] absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There are plenty of electorates where your vote make little difference.

I'm in the Taupō electorate. This has been a strong national seat for 18 years. Voting against national here, though I will, isn't going to change the outcome.

[–] ooo_shiny@lemmy.nz 1 points 2 weeks ago

Fair enough. Hence why I’ve been arguing to retain the party vote system under my proposed tinkering rather than moving to electorates only.